School funding across the states has reached an all-time low, and it is due to unfair funding. States such as Texas have been taken to the supreme court over inadequate funding. Overall, there is a need for change in how many schools are funded.
A metal worker named Demetrio Rodriguez, who had a child in the Edgewood School District, filed a federal lawsuit against the Edgewood Independent School District. Edgewood, according to Demetrio, had an irrefutable lack of funding compared to wealthier districts. He thought this was due to two reasons: A, the location of the school district being in a lower economic standing than other schools, and B, the fact that the dominant race in the school district is Mexican American. This case was eventually taken to the Supreme Court by Rodriguez and 15 other parents that were recruited by Rodriguez. The case was dubbed San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. The court’s decision though did not live up to Rodriguez’s hopes. The court stated that education was not guaranteed and that the Texas school system had not violated any protected rights. Keep in mind this was in 1968. I believe if this case was reopened it would have a much better outcome. This is just one of many documented events of school funding being neglected due to location.
Another example of biased funding was found by the Washington Post. They posted many statistics that showed bias in school funding, though this statistic proves my point clearly and effectively: “Most states have largely stagnant or declining funding levels, and vast disparities among states remain. In fourteen states, funding levels in 2011 were below 2007 levels, even without adjusting for inflation. There is over a $10,000 gap between the highest funded state (Wyoming) and the lowest (Idaho). The
majority of states have funding systems with “flat” or “regressive” funding distribution patterns that ignore the need for additional funding in high-poverty districts. Recent trends show an increase in the number of regressive states and a decline in the number of progressive states. For example, Utah and New Jersey, both of which previously were among the most progressive states, experienced significant erosion of equity.” (Valerie Strauss) This shows how the funding of public schools differs among states and shows
how having a higher state value dictates how much funding you get.
Taking these pieces of information into account, it shows the bias in the school administrations in cities and states. Some of the main offenders of this are the states Idaho and Utah, with Idaho being the state with the highest gap of monetary support across school districts. And also seeing how the state of Texas was biased against school districts with a predominantly Mexican American community versus other such communities.
In conclusion, there is a definitive bias across states that dictate how much a school is funded. Many states such as Texas, Idaho, Utah, and New Jersey have a crumbling financial support system put in place that is in dire need of change.
...(download the rest of the essay above)